1. Field of Invention
The invention relates to a box, inter alia for cosmetics such as make-up.
2. Description of Prior Art
Most make-up boxes comprise a base at the bottom defining an upper recess for containing cosmetic products (make-up, power, etc.) and/or accessories (brushes, pencils etc.) and also comprise a top cover pivotably mounted on the base around a usually transverse rear pivot, between a closed position and an open position. The main purpose of the cover is to close the recess containing the cosmetic products and accessories so as to protect them and hold them in position. The cover may also be adapted to bear a mirror in its inner surface. When closed, the cover is pressed against the base, whereas when open it is usually at least substantially perpendicular to the base and extending upwards, the base being approximately horizontal.
In a first and commonest embodiment, the box also comprises a clasp, catch or the like disposed on the front transverse edge (French Patents No. 2 382 869, 2 411 942, 2 412 474, 2 454 284, 2 458 243, 2 471 326, 2 472 517, 2 488 109, 2 505 632, 2 511 233, 2 511 584, 2 512 650, 2 527 058, 2 543 412, 2 546 137, 2 546 386, 2 560 507, 2 561 882, and European Patents No. 0036 828 and 0081 901). This embodiment has a number of disadvantages - the cut-out portions or holes or projections on the front transverse edge are unsightly and dangerous and a source of dirt; the opening operation is inevitably inaccurate in nature and requires both hands (see FIG. 8 of French Patent 2 512 650); the box construction requires numerous components and excellent dimensional accuracy, thus increasing cost; and the clasp makes use of the elasticity of the constituent material, thus posing the problem of constant elasticity between different clasps for a given clasp over a period of time.
In a variant of the first embodiment, the clasps are disposed at the side (French Patents No. 2 494 970, 2 517 528 and 2 549 355). However, these boxes usually have the same disadvantages as those mentioned previously, in addition to the fact that lateral clasps are slightly less visible than a front clasp.
In a second embodiment, the box is held closed, with the cover pressing against the base, by magnetic elements (French Patents No. 2 053 956). However, this embodiment does not eliminate the projections for gripping, or the need to use both hands when opening.
In a third embodiment, the hinge comprises a resiliently deformable element (French Patents No. 2 460 850). However, this embodiment does not eliminate the previously-mentioned disadvantages, and has the disadvantage of elasticity mentioned in connection with the first embodiment.
In a fourth embodiment, the hinge is in two parts without a pivot (French Patents No. 2 512 484). However, this specification does not provide any means for holding the box closed or any specific opening means, the disadvantages being the difficulty of opening and the risk of opening accidentally.
A fifth, more recent embodiment is derived from the first embodiment already described (French Patents No. 2 534 787 and 2 538 230). The clasp, which is disposed on the front transverse edge of the box, is movable and actuated by a control member borne by a slideway extending over the main surface of the base on the inner side, the slideway terminating at the opposite side in a push rod disposed on the rear transverse edge of the box. This embodiment solves some of the problems posed by the elasticity of the material constituting the clasp. However, it has some disadvantages: the box can be only half-opened by operating the push rod, i.e. the clasp is made passive but the box is not opened completely. The user therefore has to perform two successive operations--first to actuate the push rod then to open the box completely, using both hands. The previously-mentioned risk of dirt and unsightliness are not eliminated and the amount of material used for making the box is increased, and the thickness of the box is also increased by superposing the slideway on the main surface of the base.
In a sixth embodiment, based on the fifth, the front clasp is omitted and replaced by a side of the push rod and a side of the cover which can cooperate with one another (French Patent 2 535 957). This embodiment has the advantage of eliminating the disadvantages inherent in the presence of a visible front clasp. On the other hand this embodiment requires the presence of a spring for returning the push rod, thus constituting an additional component which has the disadvantages associated with elasticity. Above all, this embodiment has exactly the same disadvantages as described in the case of the fifth embodiment with regard to operation (the box is half-opened by the push rod and then completely opened in two successive operations using both hands).
In a seventh embodiment (French Patent 2 338 671) likewise based on the fifth, the push rod also acts on a lug adjacent the cover. This embodiment theoretically has the advantage of overcoming the disadvantages of two fold operation, but in no way overcomes the other disadvantages of the fifth embodiment. Furthermore it is doubtful whether the push rod can be used for opening the front clasp and simultaneously rotating the cover; the lug is disposed perpendicular to the push rod when the cover is closed, so that when the push rod is actuated in order to open the cover the lug probably jams and is an obstacle to opening. The box has a permanent rear opening and an opening between the base and the cover. These two openings are unsightly since they show the push rod, and are also sources of dirt.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,003,355 provides a rear push rod, but combined with a resilient means which therefore has the inherent disadvantages.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,308,835 provides a front closure device and a rear closure device and also comprises a spring.